Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
the election and make it clear that republicans will put revenue on the table, i took a great risk. and then the white house spends three weeks trying to develop a proposal and they sum one up here that calls for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, calls for not even $4 billion in cuts, and they want to have this extra spending that's actually greater than the amount they're willing to cut. i mean it was not a serious proposal. and so right now we're almost nowhere. >> let me start with -- let me start with joe jan on this thing because you and i often agree. this whole thing here, i just think boehner has never accepted the fact that the rates have to go up at the top. i mean they're talking about deductions and all this finesse, they lost this debate. if there was any issue that came out, the president was dead right. he mads he statement clear. the public wants to have some tax fairness. they don't want the top 2% to hold this thing up. boehner doesn't want to hear that. why not? is he unable to hear it? does he not want to hear it? or is he afraid of his own people in the party, the pe
that have done it. in this past election, which i think is very pivotal, four states did it completely by popular vote. no court ruling on rights, just public will. >> for the first time in 40 years in four states, thanks to the efforts of chad and a lot of other people, for the first time there was a populist vote, and the people spoke. they have never spoken in favor before, but there are really two ways. it's also equal protection under the law and also that the court has found it to be a fundamental right. this is an extraordinary, extraordinary time, and -- >> let's cut this in two. there's two questions here. one is doma, the defense of marriage act. this administration will not defend it in the courts. if that gets struck down, what does that say to cases around the country where people have been allowed to marry in the same gender? chad, on that. what happens it doma gets struck down by the court, 5-4 or whatever? >> the ridiculously named defense of marriage act would be gone obviously. >> what would it mean to a gay person who is married? >> that would mean that couples who a
states that have done it. this past election i think is very pivotal. four states did it completely by popular vote. no court ruling on rights, public will. >> for the first time in 40 years, in four states, thanks to efforts of chad and a lot of other people, for the first time, there was a populous vote and the people spoke. they have never spoken in favor before. they're are really two ways, also equal pro-tukz tection und law and a fundamental right. this is an extraordinary time. >> two questions. one is doma, defense of marriage act. this administration won't defend it in the courts. if that gets struck down, what does that say to cases where people have been allowed to marry in the same gender. what happens if doma gets struck down by the court, 5-4, whatever. >> the ridiculously named defense of marriage act would be gone. >> what would it mean to a person married? >> that would bemean couples married in those states would be recognized by the federal government. would mean we still have a lot of work to do and depending how they rule in the prop 8 case we still need other s
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)